Anna Nordqvist Grounds Club in Bunker, Loses U.S. Women's Open

[rehmwa]

Not a fan of the video reviews like the last couple.  If it's not something the player or his group can call him on, then these bug me.

I'm not saying it's wrong, it just bugs me.  One could ask, why didn't the other player call the penalty, or the rules official on site, or her own caddie, etc etc etc......

[iacas]

Just now, rehmwa said:

Not a fan of the video reviews like the last couple.  If it's not something the player or his group can call him on, then these bug me.

I'm not saying it's wrong, it just bugs me.  One could ask, why didn't the other player call the penalty, or the rules official on site, or her own caddie, etc etc etc......

Because they didn't see it. Why didn't Anna call it on herself? Same answer, if you're one to believe her (as I am in this case).

That doesn't change the fact that a rule was broken.

[Golfingdad]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's not a common sense issue. You can't just keep saying that as if it adds any validity or weight to your very limited opinion (limited because you're just talking about slight differences to one scenario).

What if this had happened on the 16th hole of regulation, and they found out after players who were possibly in contention had finished playing? Do they get to go back out and re-play the last hole? Where does it stop? What if Anna had birdied 16 and taken 3 to BL’s 2 on the last hole: they’d be at the same “number” of strokes on the aggregate but not on the 18th hole. What if there were three players, all at different total strokes and all at different strokes on 18 - are you going to go around and tell one but wait to tell the others? What if a player with a lot of strokes is next to play? What if that player is the one penalized? What if it’s another player?

So many ramifications and situations. The clearest solution, IMO: tell them as soon as you know.

Which, coincidentally, also happens to be what the rules say: inform as soon as practicable.

You didn't answer any of my questions, so I will will refrain from answering any of yours.

[rehmwa]

Just now, iacas said:

Because they didn't see it. Why didn't Anna call it on herself? Same answer, if you're one to believe her (as I am in this case).

That doesn't change the fact that a rule was broken.

agreed, agreed and agreed.  Still not a fan of this at all.  No sir, no sirree, Bob.  using your answer for this - well, maybe they should all be more vigilant then

[iacas]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

You didn't answer any of my questions, so I will will refrain from answering any of yours.

Because you don't make policy based on a single tiny example constrained to one (or four) very similar hypotheticals. Policy should attempt to properly encompass all reasonable hypotheticals.

1 minute ago, rehmwa said:

agreed, agreed and agreed.  Still not a fan of this at all.  No sir, no sirree, Bob.  using your answer for this - well, maybe they should all be more vigilant then

They should. Including Anna… who should have taken more care not to put her club so dangerously close to the sand.

[rehmwa]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

 Anna… who should have taken more care not to put her club so dangerously close to the sand.

I absolutely agree with that part - I'm watching the video and thinking "that's not just close, that's goofy close"

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, cutchemist42 said:

Only thing I really think is that stuff like what happened to Anna might happen more times than we catch it. We likely only catch it cause every camera is focused on 2 people making shots in a playoff vs these cameras covering a whole field of players. Anyone agree?

Right. How many times is this happening early in tournaments when there aren't as many cameras around. How many golfers are not calling themselves for these types of infractions? Problably plenty. 

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

At least now, while it is perhaps "unfair" (there's no direct evidence that it is, of course, but it seems logical), the USGA is making these rulings based on all available evidence.  It certainly creates weird rulings and time delays and problems, but at the very least, they have the best chance of making the objectively correct call on whether things should be penalties.

Every other major sport has adjusted their rules to accomodate the emergence of video replay technology, it's time the USGA does the same. I don't have a solution, but I will give my opinion below. 

Just now, rehmwa said:

Not a fan of the video reviews like the last couple.  If it's not something the player or his group can call him on, then these bug me.

I'm not saying it's wrong, it just bugs me.  One could ask, why didn't the other player call the penalty, or the rules official on site, or her own caddie, etc etc etc......

I agree. Delayed penalties bother me for some reason. If it's not self-reported or caught by the competitor or caddy it should be done and over with. Once that hole is finished and a score is recorded that's the end of it. Rules officials should be there for disuputes or uncertainties. 

There are certianly faults to this, but it seems to work for 99% of tournament golf that is not played in front of a hundred cameras. 

[Jeremie Boop]

It's really unfortunate that such a completely insignificant amount of sand being moved caused her to lose, however that is the rule. I don't have an issue with her getting penalized, but it does make you wonder how many times other people have done as much or more "touching" of the sand that was never caught due to no cameras being around. It's becoming more and more common for relatively tiny movements getting caught. Players need to start realizing this and become more cautious in their approaching and addressing of their ball.

 

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Every other major sport has adjusted their rules to accomodate the emergence of video replay technology, it's time the USGA does the same. I don't have a solution, but I will give my opinion below. 

The only issue is that in basically every other sport all the people are filmed at the same time from multiple angles making it much easier to use this technology. However, in golf, very few people are recorded for every swing and move they make so it would be incredibly hard to try to institute the same idea. It would take a lot more cameras over a huge area to ever come close to making this a real option.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Jeremie Boop

[Phil McGleno]

30 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

 

1. The USGA makes their decision at the exact same time as they did, but as the guy is driving his cart down the path from the tent to notify the players he recognizes (or is told) that one player has played their third shot and the other player has not.  He decides to wait a minute until the other player plays their third.  What would the "fallout" be this morning?  How many people out there would be "crying foul" because he didn't tell the players as soon as was possible?

I do not care about your other scenarios but you can easily find a problem with this one-What if the official waits until both have played "3" shots but Brittany hits the third in the water.

Does he wait until Anna has played her fourth shot? Except Brittany is still away so she will play her fifth shot before Anna putts her fourth-So what does he do then?

That is no more fair than telling them right away.

[Braivo]

3 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

The only issue is that in basically every other sport all the people are filmed at the same time from multiple angles making it much easier to use this technology. However, in golf, very few people are recorded for every swing and move they make so it would be incredibly hard to try to institute the same idea. It would take a lot more cameras over a huge area to ever come close to making this a real option.

That's why IMO the use of cameras should not be factored into rules decisions at all. Not a level playing field. Let the player, his competitor, and their caddies keep the score like it was long before cameras were recording shots and replay was catching tiny infractions. 

[14ledo81]

8 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I do not care about your other scenarios but you can easily find a problem with this one-What if the official waits until both have played "3" shots but Brittany hits the third in the water.

Does he wait until Anna has played her fourth shot? Except Brittany is still away so she will play her fifth shot before Anna putts her fourth-So what does he do then?

That is no more fair than telling them right away.

Or.....  what if lightning strikes one of them, and now he can't tell her....?????

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

But that's not how the Rules of Golf work, nor should they work. This isn't the equivalent of 18/4 right now, and you can't base rulings on future Decisions that may or may not be added.

 

Just wanted to point out that nowhere did i suggest that a ruling should have been made based on a future decision and  cannot imagine anyone so advocating.  But the decision DOES reflect a PRINCIPLE. I as much as said that an expanded or (more likely) new decision would be necessary to bring this principle into wider effect.  So I'm not sure what you point was in making that comment.

 

3 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

It should make you question equitable application of the rules. Im sure that type of infraction happens dozens of times during tournament and never gets called because the player didn't notice, or the player didnt have a camera on them at that moment. I think this practice of policing after the fact by hi def television needs to go. Leave it up to the players to initiate investigations or infractions.  

The know it is a problem and they (partially, IMO) addressed it in Decision 18/4 in a different context.  WHY the principle should only apply in that specific context is what I am questioning.

 

1 hour ago, No Mulligans said:

Unfortunately I can relate a bit.  I've become more and more forgetful, especially short term memory.  Chemo brain or age or both.  I don't drink so that only leaves...?

But when someone is in a position like that they have to make sure that doesn't happen.  There is a big difference between forgetting where you put your car keys and making yourself look like a (possibly drunken) fool on national TV as you represent your organization.  

 

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

 

This makes a lot of sense, and I can understand why people are uncomfortable with infractions caught by cameras that might not be on other players.  The problem, though, is that it's just a very tough thing to actually put in place.

If you don't allow camera evidence, you'll end up in a situation where a clear infraction (like this one) is on camera, and everyone knows that it should have been a penalty, but wasn't...and that player wins because of it.

 

And yet they have dealt with it in the ball moving scenario.  Under decision 18/4 there can be clear video evidence of a ball moving yet under that decision the penalty would not be assessed.  So it isn't like they haven't thought about the situation.  WHY they limit it to the ball moving situation is the question I have.

 

37 minutes ago, iacas said:

As @Hardspoon said, you can't really regulate that. Either you're forcing the committee to ignore obvious evidence or you're forcing something else that's wholly impractical - the non-use of closeups, "equal" camera coverage (never mind camera angles, etc.) for all players, etc.

 

Isn't "ignoring" clear evidence EXACTLY what Decision 18/4 says the Committee MUST do if the clear evidence is only due to HD video and/or technology?  So there is already a situation where clear evidence is to be ignored, so there is no longer an iron-clad principle that rulings should be made on ALL evidence.  And I am unconvinced by your reasons why it might be appropriate to ignore HD video evidence for ball moving but not for touching sand.

Again, I am not arguing that they should not have made the ruling they did, because I understand that my position is not currently reflected in the Decision.  I am arguing that they should have made the principle apply in a broader manner, and not having down so originally a change or  new decision should be promulgated to take a clear, across the board, position on the use of HD and enhanced video in making rulings.  I am OK with the evidence being in or out - I just think there should be consistency

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

That's why IMO the use of cameras should not be factored into rules decisions at all. Not a level playing field. Let the player, his competitor, and their caddies keep the score like it was long before cameras were recording shots and replay was catching tiny infractions. 

I can understand why you say that. It's just that you are then asking the rules officials to ignore actual evidence of a rule infraction. It is unfortunate that only those who happen to be on camera have to worry about this, but knowing that it's possible should be enough for them to know to be more cautious. To me it's like traffic light cameras. Not every light has them so do we ignore when those cameras catch someone running a red light?

[Fourputt]

12 hours ago, natureboy said:

Seriously. Who can spot  a few grains of sand moving when the clubhead is covering them from the player's view, let alone feel them.

That's a very interesting perspective. I would agree that the principle seems very applicable to Anna's situation.

The one thing I'll say is that every player knows the rule, and in my humble opinion, she took too much of a chance by trying to place the club too close to the ball at address.  Basically she took what I see as an unnecessary risk and was bitten for it.  It sucks because of the situation, but it was handled as well as was possible, notification was made as soon as the breach was verified, and putting blame on the USGA for her gaff is just sour grapes.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Right. How many times is this happening early in tournaments when there aren't as many cameras around. How many golfers are not calling themselves for these types of infractions? Problably plenty. 

Every other major sport has adjusted their rules to accomodate the emergence of video replay technology, it's time the USGA does the same. I don't have a solution, but I will give my opinion below. 

I agree. Delayed penalties bother me for some reason. If it's not self-reported or caught by the competitor or caddy it should be done and over with. Once that hole is finished and a score is recorded that's the end of it. Rules officials should be there for disuputes or uncertainties. 

There are certianly faults to this, but it seems to work for 99% of tournament golf that is not played in front of a hundred cameras. 

This has been discussed and answered already. Golf isn't fair. TV coverage does not change the facts of what happened, it simply acts as evidence.

Should we remove all cameras because not all criminals are caught on camera committing crimes?

The USGA, whether you like it or not (and I like it), simply tries to use all available evidence. Sometimes that involves a video replay. Sometimes it involves spectator testimony. Sometimes it involves the fellow competitor… Or whatever…

You don't think that if there was an obvious penalty caught on camera that they couldn't penalize for because it was on camera… that wouldn't cause a fuss?

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Just wanted to point out that nowhere did i suggest that a ruling should have been made based on a future decision and  cannot imagine anyone so advocating.  But the decision DOES reflect a PRINCIPLE.

I don't think it does, or if it is a "principle" (I take it you're not really using it the same way we tend to use the word "principle" when discussing the Tufts book), it's one that hasn't been applied beyond "ball at rest moved." As it currently stands, moving your ball and grounding your club in a hazard aren't like situations. You can't apply a "principle" from one to the other.

Like I said later on, I could see a new Decision applying in a similar manner to 18/4, but it doesn't exist now, so you can't use 1-4 and 18/4 to waive the penalty on Anna.

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I as much as said that an expanded or (more likely) new decision would be necessary to bring this principle into wider effect.  So I'm not sure what you point was in making that comment.

I think that, with the rest of the post, my point was pretty clear. The "principle" doesn't travel from 18/4 to some rule about hazards. They're not the same, and I disagree 18/4 provides a "principle" right now that you could use for touching the club to the sand in a bunker.

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

The know it is a problem and they (partially, IMO) addressed it in Decision 18/4 in a different context.  WHY the principle should only apply in that specific context is what I am questioning.

The different context matters. It's not the same. It's… different. Your word(s). The "why" question isn't one I can answer. Ask the USGA. Or wait to see if they do change this.

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And yet they have dealt with it in the ball moving scenario.  Under decision 18/4 there can be clear video evidence of a ball moving yet under that decision the penalty would not be assessed.  So it isn't like they haven't thought about the situation.  WHY they limit it to the ball moving situation is the question I have.

You'd have to ask them. As I've said, I suspect we may see either an over-riding rule/decision about "the naked eye" (perhaps supplanting 18/4), or one similar to 18/4 but specific to hazards.

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And I am unconvinced by your reasons why it might be appropriate to ignore HD video evidence for ball moving but not for touching sand.

As you know, 18/4 says nothing about touching the sand in a bunker. It covers only the ball moving imperceptibly. It has nothing to do with "my reasons" at all, and everything to do with what's written.

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Again, I am not arguing that they should not have made the ruling they did, because I understand that my position is not currently reflected in the Decision.  I am arguing that they should have made the principle apply in a broader manner, and not having down so originally a change or  new decision should be promulgated to take a clear, across the board, position on the use of HD and enhanced video in making rulings.  I am OK with the evidence being in or out - I just think there should be consistency

So you're arguing what, Rich? For better hindsight in advance? That 18/4 should have been added under Decisions to 1-4 and covered any instance in which an infraction is imperceptible to the naked eye, and not just limited to a ball moving?

Like I said, I suspect they may do just that. But they haven't yet, so the rule is what it is. They couldn't rule any other way. This is a distinction I don't know that people "get": I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just what it "is."

[Hardspoon]

23 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 I am OK with the evidence being in or out - I just think there should be consistency

Yeah, the more I think about it the weirder it is. There must be some violations for which a more general application of decisions similar to 18/4 would be problematic, but I can't think of any offhand.

The only distinction I can think of is that in the case of a ball moving, the only potential advantage is the ball position. In a bunker, the rule is to prevent you from testing the ground. But it's ridiculous to think that any contact which is so minute that it can only be seen on video is enough to "test" anything.

You should start a thread on that specifically...

[Aflighter]

25 minutes ago, Braivo said:

That's why IMO the use of cameras should not be factored into rules decisions at all. Not a level playing field. Let the player, his competitor, and their caddies keep the score like it was long before cameras were recording shots and replay was catching tiny infractions. 

Thank you Braivo.You earn pts with me.Hate to bring more issues up but maybe the cameraman wanted an American US Open champion over a swede haa.Id like to ask for what reason was he zooming in on a record ed shot? Are they being told to look gor infractions?

[Fourputt]

3 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Thank you Braivo.You earn pts with me.Hate to bring more issues up but maybe the cameraman wanted an American US Open champion over a swede haa.Id like to ask for what reason was he zooming in on a record ed shot? Are they being told to look gor infractions?

Sheesh.... now we start with the conspiracy theories....